Evidence of meeting #4 for Status of Women in the 40th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was jobs.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Prof. Kathleen Lahey
Yes, Statistics Canada has been publishing those studies for years. The most recent one I've seen is dated 2005, I think. It's something they document very closely.
Liberal
Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
What is the percentage of women who go back to work more quickly and who do not take their full leave?
Prof. Kathleen Lahey
Approximately 25% of women are not able to take their full maternity leave period, even though technically it's been expanded to a year. Those are women who, on average, have incomes of $16,000. The whole group of the 25% earn $20,000 or less, or if they are not single parents, they, with their partner or husband together, earn no more than $40,000 per year. So it's clearly the financially stressed group. There are also figures that show that if a woman has a permanent, full-time job she will almost certainly take the full one-year maternity leave--98% do so. It's well documented.
Liberal
Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
We provide training for women who want to improve their standard of living. Do they make use of that training to improve their lives? They have children and need day care, and that means more money from their pockets.
Is there a study that mentions the percentage of women who make use of those programs?
Prof. Kathleen Lahey
Well, there are figures showing that child care is an absolute pre-condition to access, and that is one of the points on which the OECD has roundly criticized Canada. Canada provides less child care than any of the 30 OECD industrialized countries, and it also has the worst record in terms of trying to keep the rates affordable. It has the highest cost of child care as well. Training programs almost never have supplementary child care built into them as a matter of right, and even in some areas where you would expect it to be openly available to everyone, it seems to be very selectively allocated.
Senior Economist, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
May I also add, Madam Zarac, that it was very welcome to see the expansion of access to EI training in this budget. The fact is, it is desperately needed, so it needed to be expanded. But the truth is, given that we've just seen a 16% increase in the number of EI beneficiaries who are male, the men are going to come into the system first, and access to EI spots is going to be taken up by those who came in through the door first and those who get most access. So the types of training spots that are there are going to be, just by virtue of who's getting in through the door and when, taken up more by men than by women--assuming that women were even getting into the system at the same rate, which they're not.
Liberal
Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
Yes, but we'd like it to be available to them because there's a need for them. They're making--
Senior Economist, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
But it shouldn't be just EI triggered, because we have these enormous labour market shortages.
Liberal
Conservative
Tilly O'Neill-Gordon Conservative Miramichi, NB
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for joining us today. I too am a newcomer and am interested in this.
Through the strategic training and transition fund, the government is increasing funding to provinces and territories for training and support measures that help individuals who do not qualify for EI training, including the self-employed. As we know, the self-employed are not all alike. Their needs vary and are more complex. This is a particularly important consideration when assessing the applicability of EI benefits for self-employed.
Under the labour market agreements signed with the provinces and territories, unemployed individuals who were previously self-employed are now eligible for support. Under the labour management agreement, Canada's government will invest $500 million annually over the next six years to increase the quantity and enhance the quality of Canada's labour force. These resources will be allocated to the provinces and the territories on an equal per capita basis. These investments will focus on supporting skills development for unemployed and low-skilled employed individuals who are not eligible for training assistance under the employment insurance program.
Because women make up a large percentage of self-employed workers, as we all know, can you explain some of the advantages of this program that are outlined just for women?
Prof. Kathleen Lahey
There are a couple of things I would point out. The first is that the figure of $500 million is, in this context, extremely small. When the federal government was very serious about improving employment among aboriginal people, something like $636 million was aimed just at aboriginal groups. That's a large amount of money for such a small population. That $500 million spread across a population that is admittedly large and growing is really a drop in the bucket. It's certainly a step in the right direction, but it would need to be increased tremendously, perhaps by scaling back some of the corporate income tax cuts, which, by next year, will cost Canada $10.3 billion per year in lost revenue.
The second thing is that a number of job training programs that will inevitably be put in place, I believe, will take the form of focusing on the trades and apprenticeships. And although some provinces have established programs to try to gain equity in those areas of employment, the document I circulated indicates on page 1 that only 7% of those people in the trades, transportation, and construction are women. So it's still not going to get at the problem this committee is predominantly concerned with.
Senior Economist, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Thank you very much for your question, Madam O'Neill-Gordon.
I don't know if you remember this, but in the 1984 election that was won by Brian Mulroney, the campaign focused on “jobs, jobs, jobs”, and by 1985 and 1986, his campaign had turned into “training, training, training”. I have to say that, unfortunately, I was around in those days, watching the training money being flowed through.
You can put a lot of people through training as a kind of stop-gap measure to say that you're doing something. Now, the money you're talking about is actually going towards opening up more training spaces. That is very welcome, but training does not necessarily create jobs. This is not Field of Dreams: train them and the jobs will come. We need job creation mechanisms in place, because we know that the self-employed rise as a proportion of the labour market when there aren't any jobs.
More training is great. That's terrific. But we actually have a strategic problem going forward. It isn't just training as a counter-cyclical measure that is required but training that is preparing our labour market to fill the breach and replace all those people who are going to be leaving the labour market. They may have to delay their retirement for a few years because their retirement savings have just dried up. But we know that in the next 10 years there is going to be a labour shortage. You think you have a labour shortage now in health care? Wait five or 10 years. We have no strategic plan. Where are we putting our training money? Are we going to make sure that those services that Canadians have a statutory right to receive--health and education--are serviced in the public sector? Will we have enough bodies to provide the health and education services that Canadians expect as a right of citizenship, and should expect in a country as advantaged as ours?
It's very important to have a counter-cyclical stimulus, and training is always welcome. It's always better to be smarter than to be stupider. If you think training isn't an answer, don't try ignorance. But the truth is that we need a strategic plan that uses those dollars, that magnificent amount of dollars that is there, that says we are laying in place a plan with our partners at the provincial level because we know what is coming down the road and we are preparing for it.
That is absent.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, Ms. Lahey and Ms. Yalnizyan. I have to tell you that I am having a hard time right now. I am passionate myself, but I do not like being angry.
I will shortly have been on the Committee on the Status of Women for three years. For three years, we have had in-depth discussions about all kinds of problems that affect women and we have tabled reports. But we have not been listened to. It is as if our committee means nothing, is not important and, most of all, has no influence.
Rather than trying to understand and find solutions to the current economic crisis, which affects women more than anyone else, they try to justify their position by saying that their side is stronger than the other and that their side is right.
I like to hear all the witnesses who come here with an open mind. But rather than listening to what you have to tell us with an open mind, we get party lines read to us. If I want to see the party lines, I will read the budget. I am sick of it!
We brought you here to suggest ways to get women out of the misery in which they find themselves. Fifty-four billion dollars has been stolen from the unemployed. That money could have been given back to the unemployed. I pay insurance premiums on my house, and, if there is a fire, I will be reimbursed. I started working when I was 13 years old. I have paid into Employment Insurance all my life and I have received Employment Insurance benefits for about five weeks. I do not consider that I stole from the government. I did not sit at home collecting Employment Insurance benefits and telling myself that I was better off like that.
I am sorry, ladies. Last year, you gave us advice about gender-specific budgeting. You explained that all departments are supposed to be aware of gender-specific budgeting, and that they must not accept any project that is not specifically gender-based. They have not considered it in the budget at all. There are no advantages for women anywhere. What do you think has happened?
Senior Economist, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
I have to say that I understand your rage, having been a feminist economist for a very long time and getting nowhere—in fact, losing ground—for a very long time. It is challenging.
But can I just say that we are now in a new moment? The crisis does permit us to talk as reasonable partners in this. There are things that have occurred in this budget that perhaps should not have occurred, in my view, but we have to move forward on what we can do to best stabilize the situation. It will have a gender lens to it, but it is by no means specific to women. This is a problem, and once you resolve it, more women will be helped. But it is not specific to women. I sincerely hope we can have a genuine discussion on how.
The Conservative Party also would like to reform things to prevent further economic free fall and see how the employment insurance system can be a part of the solution.
I understand very much where your rage comes from. I don't know what else to say.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Does anyone want to continue?
Continue Madame Demers. You have about 40 seconds.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, as Ms. Yalnizyan has said, I hope that we are going to be able to hold our discussions with openness and common sense. No matter what we say, we are here to advance the cause of women. This must be our common objective, whatever our political views, whether we are on the left, the right or in the centre. Our meetings should be held with openness and common sense, recognizing everyone's experiences and not just what is written down.
I have aunts and uncles who have farms in the West. That is good, but if there are no jobs, however much training they have received, they will not be able to work any more. That is what has to be said.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I blush at not having exhibited the passion of Madame Demers. I must say I admire it very much because ultimately we are here to look after the people of this country, the men, women, and their children, and I fear that we haven't done that.
One of the hallmarks of this government is accountability. Should the government be required to report annually the eligibility and ineligibility of EI recipients by gender, by region, to Parliament so that we can get a handle on this? Would that be effective, or is it sort of sidestepping?